Let's have fun with this. As usual, all the usual rules apply here for the hype, no swearing, no trolling etc. also, try to avoid making anyone the messiah.

President Sanders
- first major success is raising the minimum wage
- republicans struggle to come up with anything negative about him, so they focus on his wife Jane. A popular but cruel meme involves comparing her to the other potential First Lady, melania Trump. Some even suggest following Sanders' legislation to protect trans people that Sanders is trans himself and sidelines as Jane.
- a major setback is Sanders inability to compromise, leaving many of his cabinet frustrated. He is also unable to take any defence issues seriously, always segueing into the working class. As a result, by the end of his presidentcy Russia has regained much of its territory lost during the Cold War.
- in the end, people say he did well but ultimately was not as revolutionary as people thought he would be. He retires and helps Prime Minister Corbyn win his first term and then travels the world giving speeches in China, Venezuela, Israel and Greece

Honestly, the result would've been a lot of deadlock. More than Obama era. Think Carter during the Iran Hostage Crisis, but rather than having his hands tied due to unrest over a foreign crisis, it would be because the President would be incapable of compromising or getting out of his own way.

A lot of Sanders's biggest proponents during the campaign were those who bought into the trend and had no familiarity with his time in DC. There is a reason Sanders got no major endorsements (no, some nobody Congresswoman from Hawaii, who only endorsed because she miscalculated how it would effect her stock in DC, does not count). As much as his campaign would like to say "its because he stands up to those corrupt establishment insiders!" the truth is much simpler: Sanders is a jerk who doesn't know how to play nice with others.

Some of the stories I have heard range from him storming out of meetings screaming expletives (over minor things, with supposed allies) to him telling his staff to refuse to take calls from other Congressmen and locking his office doors like a child who took his ball and went home. There is a reason that Sanders has spent 30 + years in DC and has no relevant legislation to his name. He has sponsored exactly three successful laws during his ten years in the Senate. Two of those laws rename post offices.

And all of the "amendment king" nonsense is just that, nonsense. The kind of stuff that Sanders would get tacked on through amendment is the kind of stuff that would normally get tacked onto a law. Pork spending, little things here, little things there. The type of stuff that makes you look good in your district or state. But the thing is, Sanders didn't need to do it as an amendment. This is the type of stuff that if you just go to Party leadership and ask for it to be included, they would include it. The reason being; they don't want anyone causing a ruckus when it comes time to attach their own pork for the district/state. But Sanders went about it in such an odd way, sneaking it in during the amendment phase and then giggling to himself like he pulled off some brilliant, Danny Ocean-esque heist that no one in the "establishment" noticed or could stop. The truth is far more simple than Sanders's self-aggrandizing conspiracy theories: no one cared.

The reality is, Sanders has neither the temperament nor know-how to work with Congressional leadership. Considering his agenda was pretty radical change, he would've needed that to accomplish even 1/16th of what he was promising. Especially with a Republican Congress. Further, this is a man who does not know compromise/refuses to make it. When it became apparent that he couldn't have that, there would've been a melt down. Sanders is the type who becomes more entrenched with each bit of push back (his primary campaign evidenced that, he doubled down on vicious attacks when it became apparent that he had lost). Therefore, you would have dirty congressional street fights over things even as simple as confirmation of cabinet positions (because Sanders will never give a little in order to take a little). The big things like a budget, tax reform or health care? Forget it.

And if you think the American people would've blamed Congress rather than Sanders, I suggest this. The American people have allowed the Republicans to strengthen their hold over the House and the Senate despite being nothing but obstructionists for the past 8 years, to a President who is far better spoken than Sanders and far more likeable. Do you really think Americans would suddenly be moved to outrage and force Congress to act once an 75 year old man-child starts throwing public temper tantrums? Ask Trump how that is working out.

And that brings us full circle. I've long said Sanders is the reverse side of the Trump coin. He is an angry malcontent. Angry malcontents do not make good leaders. Sanders's presidency would've been more disastrous than Trump's. Perhaps not as scandalous. But we would be in government shut down right now with President Sanders. Eventually, he would be forced into compromise, but it would only be just enough to keep the government running. Otherwise, there would be no substantive laws passed, his agenda would be deadlock. I'd be shocked if we even got the Scalia seat filled.

The Sanders Presidency would be four years of deadlock. He would be a lame duck from day one. And in 2020, a young, energetic, well spoken Republican would beat him...maybe Paul Ryan, since he wouldn't be saddled with Trump's scandals at the expense of his own political future and would become the face of Congress standing up to the reckless spending of Sanders. Sanders would be a placeholder President.

Honestly, the result would've been a lot of deadlock. More than Obama era. Think Carter during the Iran Hostage Crisis, but rather than having his hands tied due to unrest over a foreign crisis, it would be because the President would be incapable of compromising or getting out of his own way.

A lot of Sanders's biggest proponents during the campaign were those who bought into the trend and had no familiarity with his time in DC. There is a reason Sanders got no major endorsements (no, some nobody Congresswoman from Hawaii, who only endorsed because she miscalculated how it would effect her stock in DC, does not count). As much as his campaign would like to say "its because he stands up to those corrupt establishment insiders!" the truth is much simpler: Sanders is a jerk who doesn't know how to play nice with others.

Some of the stories I have heard range from him storming out of meetings screaming expletives (over minor things, with supposed allies) to him telling his staff to refuse to take calls from other Congressmen and locking his office doors like a child who took his ball and went home. There is a reason that Sanders has spent 30 + years in DC and has no relevant legislation to his name. He has sponsored exactly three successful laws during his ten years in the Senate. Two of those laws rename post offices.

And all of the "amendment king" nonsense is just that, nonsense. The kind of stuff that Sanders would get tacked on through amendment is the kind of stuff that would normally get tacked onto a law. Pork spending, little things here, little things there. The type of stuff that makes you look good in your district or state. But the thing is, Sanders didn't need to do it as an amendment. This is the type of stuff that if you just go to Party leadership and ask for it to be included, they would include it. The reason being; they don't want anyone causing a ruckus when it comes time to attach their own pork for the district/state. But Sanders went about it in such an odd way, sneaking it in during the amendment phase and then giggling to himself like he pulled off some brilliant, Danny Ocean-esque heist that no one in the "establishment" noticed or could stop. The truth is far more simple than Sanders's self-aggrandizing conspiracy theories: no one cared.

The reality is, Sanders has neither the temperament nor know-how to work with Congressional leadership. Considering his agenda was pretty radical change, he would've needed that to accomplish even 1/16th of what he was promising. Especially with a Republican Congress. Further, this is a man who does not know compromise/refuses to make it. When it became apparent that he couldn't have that, there would've been a melt down. Sanders is the type who becomes more entrenched with each bit of push back (his primary campaign evidenced that, he doubled down on vicious attacks when it became apparent that he had lost). Therefore, you would have dirty congressional street fights over things even as simple as confirmation of cabinet positions (because Sanders will never give a little in order to take a little). The big things like a budget, tax reform or health care? Forget it.

And if you think the American people would've blamed Congress rather than Sanders, I suggest this. The American people have allowed the Republicans to strengthen their hold over the House and the Senate despite being nothing but obstructionists for the past 8 years, to a President who is far better spoken than Sanders and far more likeable. Do you really think Americans would suddenly be moved to outrage and force Congress to act once an 75 year old man-child starts throwing public temper tantrums? Ask Trump how that is working out.

And that brings us full circle. I've long said Sanders is the reverse side of the Trump coin. He is an angry malcontent. Angry malcontents do not make good leaders. Sanders's presidency would've been more disastrous than Trump's. Perhaps not as scandalous. But we would be in government shut down right now with President Sanders. Eventually, he would be forced into compromise, but it would only be just enough to keep the government running. Otherwise, there would be no substantive laws passed, his agenda would be deadlock. I'd be shocked if we even got the Scalia seat filled.

The Sanders Presidency would be four years of deadlock. He would be a lame duck from day one. And in 2020, a young, energetic, well spoken Republican would beat him...maybe Paul Ryan, since he wouldn't be saddled with Trump's scandals at the expense of his own political future and would become the face of Congress standing up to the reckless spending of Sanders. Sanders would be a placeholder President.

wow that was a great read...

now do hillary...

heck lets do what an Obama 3rd term would look like and for giggles what a Palin presidency would look like

If Bernie won I think the economy would at least decline somewhat from corporate executives and traders hating and/or fearing him although not much from seeing the Republican Congress would oppose him (if Sanders had Congress too who knows). You would definitely see a lot more green and renewable businesses sticking their hands out and getting funded and probably failing.

I think we could expect a lot of the same things that are happening now with Trump: legislative gridlock, beurocratic pushback, controversies both real and imagined.

I think Bernie would push hard to get his legislative agenda passed, but with it being so outside the norm, it'd be highly contentious and congress wouldn't want to act. At which point, it's the same situation that we're in now.

The key difference, supposedly, would be the president's popularity. IF Bernie were able to sell his vision to the American people and this political revolution of his started to take shape... then anything is possible. But without public support, Bernie's presidency would be a failure.

More than any other candidate, Bernie's platform was based on the idea of massive public engagement. And while I have every faith in Bernie... the American people....ehh....

I think we could expect a lot of the same things that are happening now with Trump: legislative gridlock, beurocratic pushback, controversies both real and imagined.

I think Bernie would push hard to get his legislative agenda passed, but with it being so outside the norm, it'd be highly contentious and congress wouldn't want to act. At which point, it's the same situation that we're in now.

The key difference, supposedly, would be the president's popularity. IF Bernie were able to sell his vision to the American people and this political revolution of his started to take shape... then anything is possible. But without public support, Bernie's presidency would be a failure.

More than any other candidate, Bernie's platform was based on the idea of massive public engagement. And while I have every faith in Bernie... the American people....ehh....

I always enjoyed this talking point that you would hear from Sanders, his surrogates, and his supporters. It is the epitome of the naivety that underlined the campaign, the notion that once he took office, America would join hands and start singing Kumbaya. Everyone with very valid political concerns about the Sanders agenda would just buy in. You saw the same naivety from '08 Obama supporters. "He doesn't need a platform! He has hope and change and when he wins he will change Washington and everything will be better!" How'd that work out for his much more moderate agenda? How'd it work out for Trump? And both of these guys entered the White House with their own Party in power. Sanders would not have such a luxury.

The fact is, this wave of pro-Sanders sentiment would have never come, because, at a very minimum 45 % of Americans are fundamentally opposed to everything Sanders stands for. Even the most moderate of Republicans, by the very nature of their political views, would find even the most modest Sanders proposals offensive to their political sensibilities. They aren't going to change their core beliefs on how government should work and suddenly become socialists. There is no bridging the gap here. Sanders is too far on the other side of the spectrum.

Similarly, he is too far on the other side of the spectrum for even moderate Democrats. We saw the Blue Dog movement rise in response to a moderate Democrat (largely due to his skin color). These types of Democrats are the ones who gave Trump Wisconsin, Michigan, PA, North Carolina, and Ohio. That is a direct result of the Republican machine being able to paint Clinton as an extension of that zany liberal Obama. How do you think they would have responded to a self-avowed socialist?

If Sanders somehow pulled off a miraculous win, he would've entered office with 70 % of the country fundamentally against every core political principle he stands for. But that's okay, cause surely President Sanders would've toned down his rhetoric and implemented a more moderate agenda, right? Because I am sure the man who is renowned in DC for being the most stubborn, bullheaded, lawmaker on either side of the aisle would suddenly change his ways at 76 years old.

Honestly, to answer the core question of this thread "what if Bernie won?", we need look no further than the current administration. Trump is showing us what happens when you allow a small sect of extremists within a Party (much like Trump supporters, Sanders's base probably controls about 15-20 % of the Party) to hijack the Presidency and attempt to implement radical change. Its not a pretty picture.

The reason for this is simple: Americans are a moderate country and disfavor radical change. We are too large and too diverse (geographically and culturally) for radical change to work in this country. There are too many competing interests. That is the nature of a melting pot country. Instead, change has to be incremental. Don't Ask/Don't Tell, for all the **** it gets by modern standards, was a very necessary incremental stepping stone in the gay rights movement. Even something like Separate But Equal, something viewed in historical retrospect as an unspeakable evil, was a necessary stepping stone in the Civil Rights Movement. These are just two examples. Change in this country has always been incremental because that is how you build a consensus in a country with so many competing interests. You ease competing interests into it, with small baby steps that everyone can be comfortable with, until such is part of the cultural norm. Then you take it another baby step further. That may not be as expedient as some would like, but the fact is, in a democracy, a country where majority rules, consensus is necessary. We don't get to dictate change, no matter how positive it may be perceived to be.

The notion that change is incremental in this country isn't a revolutionary concept either. It is hardwired into our country's DNA. The Framers, in their wisdom, knew everything I just said. They realized that America, even in the 1700s, was a diverse country. Each state had its own demographics, economies, and interests that competed with the others. To avoid a coalition of a few states with aligned interests from hijacking the rest of the country, the Framers built safeguards into the political process. They designed a government that could not be susceptible to quick radical change.

That is probably for the best. Since the 1700s, we have seen several western democracies, ranging from Napoleonic France, to WWII-era Italy and Germany, and even post-Soviet Russia, crumble as a result of one political sect attempting to implement radical change and either using it to hijack the government or the government crumbling as a result of the sudden shift. Our government is built to implement change incrementally to avoid such occurrences. This is why Trump's agenda is currently failing, this is why Sanders's agenda would have failed.

Say what you will about the Clintons of the world. Their promises may not be the sexiest or most inspiring, but Bill Clinton got **** done. Both by playing within the rules of the system and taking small incremental steps, and also setting the table for future Presidents to continue the momentum he got going. That is the ideal modus operandi for a modern American President. Obama did the same in his second term, after realizing that most of his first term policies failed because he tried to push too much too soon (sadly, we will never see the fruits of Obama's labor as Trump is tearing it apart bit by bit).

It may not be sexy, it may not be inspiring. But I will take incremental change offered by someone like Hillary Clinton (for as dishonest as people love to paint her, her campaign was one of the most grounded and intellectually honest in history) over the grand, but undeliverable promises of a snake oil salesman like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump any day.

Matt - I can appreciate that you obviously have an ax to grind against Bernie supporters, presumably over their refusal to side with the Democratic Party after the primaries. Still, I think that your frustration is misplaced. He's a few points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

I always enjoyed this talking point that you would hear from Sanders, his surrogates, and his supporters. It is the epitome of the naivety that underlined the campaign, the notion that once he took office, America would join hands and start singing Kumbaya.

It's the epitome of naivety? Really? There have been lots of political leaders throughout history who have galvanized change in their country. It's really the epitome of naivety to you that a political figure could assemble a coalition of folks in support of campaign finance reform, banking reform, and entitlement reform? I think your standards are too low personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

You saw the same naivety from '08 Obama supporters. "He doesn't need a platform! He has hope and change and when he wins he will change Washington and everything will be better!"

Yep, that's what we were alright... just a bunch of peace loving hippies who felt like our hope-power could right the earth...
You're creating a straw man... a caricature of a 60's liberal hippy to demean Bernie and Obama supporters. I don't appreciate it. Liberals come from all walks of life, just like conservatives. Employed, unemployed, hard working, lazy, men, women, old, young.... stop trying to paint all of us Bernie and Obama supporters as folks who didn't have practical, pragmatic policy suggestions. We did, we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

How'd that work out for his much more moderate agenda? How'd it work out for Trump? And both of these guys entered the White House with their own Party in power. Sanders would not have such a luxury.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean, here. Obama did have a much more moderate agenda... and it didn't work for him. As opposed to Trump or Bernie who have a more hardline agenda. Could you explain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

The fact is, this wave of pro-Sanders sentiment would have never come, because, at a very minimum 45 % of Americans are fundamentally opposed to everything Sanders stands for. Even the most moderate of Republicans, by the very nature of their political views, would find even the most modest Sanders proposals offensive to their political sensibilities. They aren't going to change their core beliefs on how government should work and suddenly become socialists. There is no bridging the gap here. Sanders is too far on the other side of the spectrum.

Yeah, it seems unlikely. We are an apathetic bunch, us Americans. And you are incorrect. 45% of Americans disagree with the Democratic Party.... but outside of party politics, the Sanders agenda is very popular. Subsidized college tuition, Medicare for all, campaign finance reform, $15 minimum wage, Wall Street reform. Re-educating the rust belt for modern jobs. A move to renewable energies. These are wildly popular ideas outside of the Republican/Democratic politics. And even more than that, they are hugely popular with the emerging young demographic. Politics can run slow, but then change all at once. Your argument seems to be that we it can't be done so we shouldn't try. How many folks have said that before? How many folks were wrong? Is it really the best choice to play it safe and only push for things when they seem feasible? Did Kennedy set a modest goal, or did he say, "enough, we're beating the Russians to the moon, Let's go!" it seems rash to say it can't be done in my opinion, although I'll admit that the odds are in your favor and it'd be a heavy lift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Similarly, he is too far on the other side of the spectrum for even moderate Democrats. We saw the Blue Dog movement rise in response to a moderate Democrat (largely due to his skin color). These types of Democrats are the ones who gave Trump Wisconsin, Michigan, PA, North Carolina, and Ohio. That is a direct result of the Republican machine being able to paint Clinton as an extension of that zany liberal Obama. How do you think they would have responded to a self-avowed socialist?

Again, you're arguing about what could happen instead of what should happen here. My argument is that we need to get to should before we get to could, and Bernie is the candidate to do that. How are we EVER going to get to campaign finance reform if we settle for a candidate who buys into Party power fundraising? Doesn't your position reconcile us to outdated election mechanisms forever.. as there will always be folks who say we NEED it in order to win? When do those people become wrong by your standards? When does the risk of a progressive win outweigh the risk of a moderate loss?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

If Sanders somehow pulled off a miraculous win, he would've entered office with 70 % of the country fundamentally against every core political principle he stands for. But that's okay, cause surely President Sanders would've toned down his rhetoric and implemented a more moderate agenda, right? Because I am sure the man who is renowned in DC for being the most stubborn, bullheaded, lawmaker on either side of the aisle would suddenly change his ways at 76 years old.

By your own admission, Obama was basically a centrist, but look at the good it did him? Can't you see how some would look at the past 20 years and say, "whether we vote in a liberal centrist or not... we are victims of obstruction... so we might as well go for the progressive minded candidate who at least fights for progressive ideas." You're making a solid argument in favor of pragmatism... I just wonder if that's what the country needs right now. It seems like folks are ready for big change.
And you say stubborn and bullheaded.. I say full of conviction and integrity. When your right, you're allowed to be a little stubborn. I kinda want someone who is bullheaded that we need universal healthcare. Would we get the votes under Bernie? Probably not. But would Bernie's strong support possibly lead our society to accept the idea faster overall? maybe... I dunno. I'm curious what it'd be like to have an executive who fought for bold progressive ideas... we've never really had one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Honestly, to answer the core question of this thread "what if Bernie won?", we need look no further than the current administration. Trump is showing us what happens when you allow a small sect of extremists within a Party (much like Trump supporters, Sanders's base probably controls about 15-20 % of the Party) to hijack the Presidency and attempt to implement radical change. Its not a pretty picture.

The reason for this is simple: Americans are a moderate country and disfavor radical change. We are too large and too diverse (geographically and culturally) for radical change to work in this country. There are too many competing interests. That is the nature of a melting pot country. Instead, change has to be incremental. Don't Ask/Don't Tell, for all the **** it gets by modern standards, was a very necessary incremental stepping stone in the gay rights movement. Even something like Separate But Equal, something viewed in historical retrospect as an unspeakable evil, was a necessary stepping stone in the Civil Rights Movement. These are just two examples. Change in this country has always been incremental because that is how you build a consensus in a country with so many competing interests. You ease competing interests into it, with small baby steps that everyone can be comfortable with, until such is part of the cultural norm. Then you take it another baby step further. That may not be as expedient as some would like, but the fact is, in a democracy, a country where majority rules, consensus is necessary. We don't get to dictate change, no matter how positive it may be perceived to be.

The notion that change is incremental in this country isn't a revolutionary concept either. It is hardwired into our country's DNA. The Framers, in their wisdom, knew everything I just said. They realized that America, even in the 1700s, was a diverse country. Each state had its own demographics, economies, and interests that competed with the others. To avoid a coalition of a few states with aligned interests from hijacking the rest of the country, the Framers built safeguards into the political process. They designed a government that could not be susceptible to quick radical change.

That is probably for the best. Since the 1700s, we have seen several western democracies, ranging from Napoleonic France, to WWII-era Italy and Germany, and even post-Soviet Russia, crumble as a result of one political sect attempting to implement radical change and either using it to hijack the government or the government crumbling as a result of the sudden shift. Our government is built to implement change incrementally to avoid such occurrences. This is why Trump's agenda is currently failing, this is why Sanders's agenda would have failed.

Say what you will about the Clintons of the world. Their promises may not be the sexiest or most inspiring, but Bill Clinton got **** done. Both by playing within the rules of the system and taking small incremental steps, and also setting the table for future Presidents to continue the momentum he got going. That is the ideal modus operandi for a modern American President. Obama did the same in his second term, after realizing that most of his first term policies failed because he tried to push too much too soon (sadly, we will never see the fruits of Obama's labor as Trump is tearing it apart bit by bit).

It may not be sexy, it may not be inspiring. But I will take incremental change offered by someone like Hillary Clinton (for as dishonest as people love to paint her, her campaign was one of the most grounded and intellectually honest in history) over the grand, but undeliverable promises of a snake oil salesman like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump any day.

Look, politics takes a long time, and then no time at all. Gay marriage didn't happen over night... but in a very small period of time, there was a cultural shift in the mindset of people, and the laws quickly changed as a result. ..Civil rights... same thing..decades of inaction and prejudice... but in a matter of 15 years... hearts of minds quickly changed. Was that because of more civil activists in the streets? Would that change just have happened naturally on it's own? Was it time?

All I'm saying is that, while I agree with you for the most part, I think there's a lot of value in bully pulpit, that you might not be fully appreciating. Bernie's bullheaded support for progressive causes may be the greatest service that we can give to those issues, even if it doesn't result in actual legislation over 8 years, follow?

I'm all for incremental change, but I don't necessarily think that means we need to settle for establishment thought at all times. The vote is how we guide our compass... we may not get to our location, but we can at least steer the boat in the right direction.

And on a side note... it's obvious that nothing gets you more worked up than Bernie talk. I hope that you consider tempering your frustration a bit. I mean... Nader ruined for us in 2000, but I don't fault Nader voters for voting for their preferred candidate. Voting is a symbolic act between ourselves and the state - it's a personal decision. And there's nothing wrong with voting for a candidate that you relate to. I criticize Bernie voters for protest voting in the general, but I don't criticize them for voting Bernie in the primary. You seem overly mad about this for some reason.

Matt - I can appreciate that you obviously have an ax to grind against Bernie supporters, presumably over their refusal to side with the Democratic Party after the primaries. Still, I think that your frustration is misplaced. He's a few points:

Please don't assume my intent. It has nothing to do with his supporters acting like petulant children. It has to do with the candidate acting like a petulant child, my personal knowledge of his 30 year record in DC, and more than anything, a genuine dislike of stupidity, which we see quite often surrounding this particular candidate and the fact that the level of depth of his supporters is generally "Twitter tells me its trendy to like him so I like him."

Quote:

It's the epitome of naivety? Really? There have been lots of political leaders throughout history who have galvanized change in their country. It's really the epitome of naivety to you that a political figure could assemble a coalition of folks in support of campaign finance reform, banking reform, and entitlement reform? I think your standards are too low personally.

Yet it never really works. You talk about history. What we see in history, when a small group galvanizes the passion of the masses to institute quick, emotionally driven change, is a break down in social stability. It is often how dictators rise to power. Fortunately, our country has safeguards against such things. It is why Trump's attempt to do so has failed so poorly. Again, our Framers specifically designed our country to prevent the kind of radical, overnight change that zealots like Trump and Sanders promise, in order to, among other reasons, protect against tyranny by majority. So yes, it is the epitome of naivety to think that anyone can ride into DC, break through gridlock and do something that our entire system of government is designed to prevent.

Quote:

Yep, that's what we were alright... just a bunch of peace loving hippies who felt like our hope-power could right the earth...
You're creating a straw man... a caricature of a 60's liberal hippy to demean Bernie and Obama supporters. I don't appreciate it. Liberals come from all walks of life, just like conservatives. Employed, unemployed, hard working, lazy, men, women, old, young.... stop trying to paint all of us Bernie and Obama supporters as folks who didn't have practical, pragmatic policy suggestions. We did, we do.

No, I am not creating a strawman. Obama's entire 08 platform is virtually nonexistent. I am not the first person to suggest this. Hell, there have been books written, by the architects of his first campaign about the very fact that he did not have a platform the first time and instead ran basically on celebrity, energizing the exact type of people I describe. In many ways, Obama laid the groundwork for Trump by making "cult of personality" a viable political platform.

Quote:

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean, here. Obama did have a much more moderate agenda... and it didn't work for him. As opposed to Trump or Bernie who have a more hardline agenda. Could you explain?

My point is, Obama had a moderate agenda and could not implement it successfully despite an unprecedented and historic win and having his party in complete control of the Congress. The opposition, even under the most perfect of circumstances, blocked his efforts to do some pretty major (albeit moderate) reform. Obama's popularity did not do a thing to help him push reform through a Congress of his own party. Yet you suggest that Sanders will take office and suddenly political pressure will become so great that the Republican Congress will follow his lead? Please.

Quote:

Yeah, it seems unlikely. We are an apathetic bunch, us Americans. And you are incorrect. 45% of Americans disagree with the Democratic Party.... but outside of party politics, the Sanders agenda is very popular. Subsidized college tuition, Medicare for all, campaign finance reform, $15 minimum wage, Wall Street reform. Re-educating the rust belt for modern jobs. A move to renewable energies. These are wildly popular ideas outside of the Republican/Democratic politics. And even more than that, they are hugely popular with the emerging young demographic. Politics can run slow, but then change all at once. Your argument seems to be that we it can't be done so we shouldn't try. How many folks have said that before? How many folks were wrong? Is it really the best choice to play it safe and only push for things when they seem feasible? Did Kennedy set a modest goal, or did he say, "enough, we're beating the Russians to the moon, Let's go!" it seems rash to say it can't be done in my opinion, although I'll admit that the odds are in your favor and it'd be a heavy lift.

What you are describing is socialism. Its not popular. The ideas you are describing do not transcend party. In fact, the only thing that transcends party is opposition to these ideas. Gallup did a 2016 poll, following Sanders's campaign to measure his impact on the electorate. When asked about things like medicare for all, universal education, Wall Street taxes designed to redistribute wealth, etc, over 60 % were opposed to almost all Sanders ideas. 30-35 % supported (mind you, a large majority of the respondents loved Sanders...they just hate his ideas, which further emphasizes that he is a Twitter candidate). Socialism is still a very bad word for a good majority of Americans.

And you can say that the youth voters will change that trend down the road, but history proves that they probably won't. We have been told countless times that America is going to shift to a socialist nation as younger generations take over. The baby boomers and hippies were supposed to do it, for example. Same with Gen Xers.

Do you know why they don't? Because young voters are all about free health care and education and wealth redistribution when they are on the bottom of the totem pole. But as they age and earn higher wages, pay more taxes, and have families to support, they move away from these ideals. In other words, when they are young they want the benefits of socialist programs. But as they age into the generation in power, they don't want to be the ones paying the bill for socialism while receiving none of the benefits.

Socialism benefits those on the bottom (youth movements tend to be in that category). There is nothing wrong with that. But in a country as large, diverse, and fundamentally hardwired toward capitalism as our own, you will be very hard pressed to make that into a sustainable movement. Socialism in America is something people age out of.

Quote:

Again, you're arguing about what could happen instead of what should happen here. My argument is that we need to get to should before we get to could, and Bernie is the candidate to do that. How are we EVER going to get to campaign finance reform if we settle for a candidate who buys into Party power fundraising? Doesn't your position reconcile us to outdated election mechanisms forever.. as there will always be folks who say we NEED it in order to win? When do those people become wrong by your standards? When does the risk of a progressive win outweigh the risk of a moderate loss?

When it is a progressive who can actually win (Sanders cannot) and takes on issues that can actually be changed without a Constitutional amendment (as would need to be done in order to perform serious campaign finance reform, since it is a speech issue . . . and none of that even begins to speak on whether we SHOULD push for an amendment to the Constitution that attempts to define or limit speech. Spoiler: we shouldn't for many reasons I won't get into).

Quote:

By your own admission, Obama was basically a centrist, but look at the good it did him? Can't you see how some would look at the past 20 years and say, "whether we vote in a liberal centrist or not... we are victims of obstruction... so we might as well go for the progressive minded candidate who at least fights for progressive ideas." You're making a solid argument in favor of pragmatism... I just wonder if that's what the country needs right now. It seems like folks are ready for big change.
And you say stubborn and bullheaded.. I say full of conviction and integrity. When your right, you're allowed to be a little stubborn. I kinda want someone who is bullheaded that we need universal healthcare. Would we get the votes under Bernie? Probably not. But would Bernie's strong support possibly lead our society to accept the idea faster overall? maybe... I dunno. I'm curious what it'd be like to have an executive who fought for bold progressive ideas... we've never really had one.

Spoken like someone who knows nothing of Sanders's time in DC. You want progressive change, why not rally behind Kirsten Gilibrand, or Elizabeth Warren, or any other candidate who realizes that you need compromise to get from point A to point B. Who realizes that its not "all or nothing." That is the biggest problem with the Sanders movement. Sanders has always treated politics like a zero-sum game.

Quote:

Look, politics takes a long time, and then no time at all. Gay marriage didn't happen over night... but in a very small period of time, there was a cultural shift in the mindset of people, and the laws quickly changed as a result. ..Civil rights... same thing..decades of inaction and prejudice... but in a matter of 15 years... hearts of minds quickly changed. Was that because of more civil activists in the streets? Would that change just have happened naturally on it's own? Was it time?

It happened largely due to baby steps, ranging from repeal of sodomy laws to general cultural acceptance to Don't Ask/Don't Tell. No true observer could say it happened in a matter of 15 years. The gay civil rights movement made its flashiest progress over the past 15 years. But when you ignore is the half-decade's worth of incremental progress that enabled those 15 years.

Quote:

All I'm saying is that, while I agree with you for the most part, I think there's a lot of value in bully pulpit, that you might not be fully appreciating. Bernie's bullheaded support for progressive causes may be the greatest service that we can give to those issues, even if it doesn't result in actual legislation over 8 years, follow?

I'm all for incremental change, but I don't necessarily think that means we need to settle for establishment thought at all times. The vote is how we guide our compass... we may not get to our location, but we can at least steer the boat in the right direction.

No, it isn't. Let's assume we have 4-8 years worth of Sanders that accomplishes nothing. You have set those movements back. You have given their opponents the canon fodder of "we tried it, it didn't work." If you doubt how valuable that is, look at the way Republicans have used it to systematically pick apart, discredit, and soon dismantle AHA. And they did that in a period of 5 or so years. There is danger to forcing something down the country's throat before it is ready. Actions have consequences. Do you know why we don't have universal healthcare today? Why we settled for Obamacare? Because Clinton tried to ram it down America's throats in the 90s before America was ready, with no incremental steps like Obamacare, and that made "universal healthcare" a bad word. Had Clinton taken a more tempered approach (as he did with the rest of presidency following his defeat on healthcare), we likely would've had something similar to Obamacare in the 90s. Then in 2010, once Americans have been eased into it, we very well could've seen our first attempt at a singlepayer system.

There is consequence to forcing something on a country that isn't ready for it. Its not as simplistic as you act. There are far bigger consequences than "ah well, we tried, win some/lose some."

Quote:

And on a side note... it's obvious that nothing gets you more worked up than Bernie talk. I hope that you consider tempering your frustration a bit. I mean... Nader ruined for us in 2000, but I don't fault Nader voters for voting for their preferred candidate. Voting is a symbolic act between ourselves and the state - it's a personal decision. And there's nothing wrong with voting for a candidate that you relate to. I criticize Bernie voters for protest voting in the general, but I don't criticize them for voting Bernie in the primary. You seem overly mad about this for some reason.

Once again, I criticize the stupidity. I criticize the gross oversimplification of the political process. Frankly, I don't want a bunch of political novices who do not understand our country or its needs trying to force radical change down the throats of America. History has proven, time and again, just how dangerous that is. Right now we are seeing exactly what happens when you allow a very small sect of zealots from the extreme end of a political spectrum overtake the national agenda. It isn't pretty. I am a self-avowed liberal and I don't want to see my side do it any more than I want to see the other side do it. Radical change is usually bad. It is ALWAYS bad when done without true thought and preparation. Neither of those qualities epitomize either Sanders's congressional career or the nature of his supporters.

Please don't assume my intent. It has nothing to do with his supporters acting like petulant children. It has to do with the candidate acting like a petulant child, my personal knowledge of his 30 year record in DC, and more than anything, a genuine dislike of stupidity, which we see quite often surrounding this particular candidate and the fact that the level of depth of his supporters is generally "Twitter tells me its trendy to like him so I like him."

Jesus... case in point. Calm down. I like how you chastise me for assuming your intentions, and then you do the same thing for Bernie supporters. Classy. You know... you can convey your point without being hostile right? ...And... dude, I didn't say that you disliked them because of them being petulant children. I said you have an ax to grind probably because of how they acted after the primary. Also, I did preface my conclusion with the word "presumably."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Yet it never really works. You talk about history. What we see in history, when a small group galvanizes the passion of the masses to institute quick, emotionally driven change, is a break down in social stability. It is often how dictators rise to power. Fortunately, our country has safeguards against such things. It is why Trump's attempt to do so has failed so poorly. Again, our Framers specifically designed our country to prevent the kind of radical, overnight change that zealots like Trump and Sanders promise, in order to, among other reasons, protect against tyranny by majority. So yes, it is the epitome of naivety to think that anyone can ride into DC, break through gridlock and do something that our entire system of government is designed to prevent.

Your language is offensive. Because someone wants to feed the poor, and subsidize education, and give folks healthcare... that makes them a zealot? Uh huh. And again, I acknowledged your point about how incremental change is good, but I reiterate my point that your argument seems to be in favor of status at all cost, which I disagree with.
Also, our constitution is a living document. It was designed to be changed and modernized. It's not about government barriers - those can be overturned. It's about political will.

Talking to our enemies
stimulus spending
getting rid of Bush tax cuts
getting out of Iraq
Healthcare reform
Equal pay for equal work
Saving the auto industry
... just to name a few...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

I am not the first person to suggest this. Hell, there have been books written, by the architects of his first campaign about the very fact that he did not have a platform the first time and instead ran basically on celebrity, energizing the exact type of people I describe. In many ways, Obama laid the groundwork for Trump by making "cult of personality" a viable political platform.

Or it could be that the electorate has genuinely felt like our political system was broken and turned to two folks (Obama and Trump) who promised to change it. You just got offended at me for assuming your intent, but you're too happy to assign mindless fellowship to others you disagree with. You're a piece of work man. There are lots and lots and lots of reasons whys folks voted for Obama, some dealing with policy, some dealing with celebrity, some dealing with being an anti-McCain vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

My point is, Obama had a moderate agenda and could not implement it successfully despite an unprecedented and historic win and having his party in complete control of the Congress. The opposition, even under the most perfect of circumstances, blocked his efforts to do some pretty major (albeit moderate) reform. Obama's popularity did not do a thing to help him push reform through a Congress of his own party. Yet you suggest that Sanders will take office and suddenly political pressure will become so great that the Republican Congress will follow his lead? Please.

So, again, what's your argument. That, since electing a moderate didn't work, we should instead go after someone more... conservative?
2) I'm not suggesting that anything WOULD happen.I actually agreed with you dude, saying that it'd be exceptionally difficult to get the movement that he wanted, BUT if he were able to organize his political movement, then that'd be the only way. Again, I understand that you're mad... but in my opinion, some positive growth is preferable to waiting. That seems to be our fundamental disagreement.
3) Shouldn't you be more angry and Reid than Obama voters? As they voted him in but Reid was the one who refused to push Obama's agenda? What if Reid actively fought for the things Obama wanted in his first 2 years? What would have happened then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

What you are describing is socialism. Its not popular. The ideas you are describing do not transcend party. In fact, the only thing that transcends party is opposition to these ideas. Gallup did a 2016 poll, following Sanders's campaign to measure his impact on the electorate. When asked about things like medicare for all, universal education, Wall Street taxes designed to redistribute wealth, etc, over 60 % were opposed to almost all Sanders ideas. 30-35 % supported (mind you, a large majority of the respondents loved Sanders...they just hate his ideas, which further emphasizes that he is a Twitter candidate). Socialism is still a very bad word for a good majority of Americans.

haha, uh huh... Well, if it's socialism, it's not much further than what the industrialized world has. And if they have it, then I don't think it's unreasonable to shoot for the same thing here. And again, we can't possibly convince hearts and minds if we settle right away. Again, remember my argument - part of the reason we don't move forward as a country is because we focus too much on the could and not on the should. As a result, most Americans feel like socialism is innately bad because folks like you push the idea that it's an impossibility. Have some imagination.
I disagree with your opinion that rejection of paid education transcends party. That's a stretch.
You kind of made my point again here by categorizing the principles. You say, "socialism is still a very bad word for a good majority of Americans." That's true, but outside of that category, folks like these ideas in principle just like they like the ACA. People want subsidized education and healthcare. Universal care right now is more popular than ever. Now, if folks don't frame like you just did.. as a massive distribution of wealth (which itself is a political argument) then people could be pretty accepting I think. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/amer..._donald_trump/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

And you can say that the youth voters will change that trend down the road, but history proves that they probably won't. We have been told countless times that America is going to shift to a socialist nation as younger generations take over. The baby boomers and hippies were supposed to do it, for example. Same with Gen Xers.

It's true, it won't happen overnight, but change is slow and then all at once. I don't consider the last 50 years to be a good benchmark to predict the future. And again, I'm not arguing could, I'm arguing should. I KNOW it's going to be a heavy lift, I KNOW that the odds are against change. But is that really a reason not to try? No, a thousand times no. Because it's worth it Matt. And you get all in a tissy because some folks would have the gall to shoot for the policies they think should be in place instead of voting for what has been given them? I'm sorry... I just can't relate to that criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Do you know why they don't? Because young voters are all about free health care and education and wealth redistribution when they are on the bottom of the totem pole. But as they age and earn higher wages, pay more taxes, and have families to support, they move away from these ideals. In other words, when they are young they want the benefits of socialist programs. But as they age into the generation in power, they don't want to be the ones paying the bill for socialism while receiving none of the benefits.

That does tend to be the trend, that's true. We'll see what happens. So, are you making the argument that Socialism is innately bad, and therefor Bernie is a zealot? Or are you making the argument that socialism can be good, but Bernie wants too much and is therefore a zealot. ? Two very different args there. You seem to be moving into the realm of thinking that Socialism is bad in general. If you want to have that argument, then fine, I guess.
What I'd tell you is that universal healthcare is VERY popular in other countries. Paid maternity leave, subsidized education, less income inequality, government regulations on businesses...
You can claim that Socialism is incompatible with America because it's an infantile idea that we inevitably grow out of, but I will strongly disagree. I think there are more than enough instances that show a successful socialist/capitalist model can work very well. You say it can't be done. I say, we need to find a good Salesman, and you don't do that by giving up on the goal before even looking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Socialism benefits those on the bottom (youth movements tend to be in that category). There is nothing wrong with that. But in a country as large, diverse, and fundamentally hardwired toward capitalism as our own, you will be very hard pressed to make that into a sustainable movement. Socialism in America is something people age out of.

Not really, a rising tide lifts all boats. Less income inequality and better paid workers helps the job creators too. The argument that the country is too big and too diverse is an interesting one. I'd point to the new deal which got us out of the depression and took us into the golden 50s. Also, I'd say that these are really bold claims coming from someone who is deadset on never trying. Third, almost all countries are a mixture of socialism and capitalism. It's these kinds of labels which stop folks from exploring other areas. Libraries, schools, streets, police officers, firemen, water pipes, food regulations, animal control, water purification - all socialist agendas. Bernie isn't talking about becoming a socialist country. He's talking about a more equal mixture of socialism and capitalism together like almost every other industrialized nation in the entire world. You say it's impossible. I say, maybe we should try before you say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

When it is a progressive who can actually win (Sanders cannot)

1) I guess the DNC disagreed with you.
2) this idea that you only vote for who can win is pretty vile, man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

....and takes on issues that can actually be changed without a Constitutional amendment (as would need to be done in order to perform serious campaign finance reform, since it is a speech issue . . . and none of that even begins to speak on whether we SHOULD push for an amendment to the Constitution that attempts to define or limit speech. Spoiler: we shouldn't for many reasons I won't get into).

So.... only deal with it if it can be changed. If changing it is too hard, better to ignore it and vote in the guy who doesn't care.

....alright.....

You can avoid that argument if you want, but that's a big one that deals with this issue. If you really think that corporations deserve the freedom of speech of an individual, which means giving limitless funds, in secret, to political campaigns... then I can see why you don't like Bernie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Spoken like someone who knows nothing of Sanders's time in DC. You want progressive change, why not rally behind Kirsten Gilibrand, or Elizabeth Warren, or any other candidate who realizes that you need compromise to get from point A to point B. Who realizes that its not "all or nothing." That is the biggest problem with the Sanders movement. Sanders has always treated politics like a zero-sum game.

It happened largely due to baby steps, ranging from repeal of sodomy laws to general cultural acceptance to Don't Ask/Don't Tell. No true observer could say it happened in a matter of 15 years. The gay civil rights movement made its flashiest progress over the past 15 years. But when you ignore is the half-decade's worth of incremental progress that enabled those 15 years.

...That is exactly what I'm saying. It takes a long time, and then no time all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

No, it isn't. Let's assume we have 4-8 years worth of Sanders that accomplishes nothing. You have set those movements back. You have given their opponents the canon fodder of "we tried it, it didn't work." If you doubt how valuable that is, look at the way Republicans have used it to systematically pick apart, discredit, and soon dismantle AHA. And they did that in a period of 5 or so years. There is danger to forcing something down the country's throat before it is ready. Actions have consequences. Do you know why we don't have universal healthcare today? Why we settled for Obamacare? Because Clinton tried to ram it down America's throats in the 90s before America was ready, with no incremental steps like Obamacare, and that made "universal healthcare" a bad word. Had Clinton taken a more tempered approach (as he did with the rest of presidency following his defeat on healthcare), we likely would've had something similar to Obamacare in the 90s. Then in 2010, once Americans have been eased into it, we very well could've seen our first attempt at a singlepayer system.

There is consequence to forcing something on a country that isn't ready for it. Its not as simplistic as you act. There are far bigger consequences than "ah well, we tried, win some/lose some."

1) ACA was an intermediate act
2) Again, I think you may underestimate the value of the pulpit
3) Again, when will we know by your standard? What's the bright line from not far enough to just right?
4) This seems to be a highly selective view of history
5) You just said that he probably wouldn't be able to pass anything. So which is it? Is Bernie bad because he won't get anything done or is Bernie bad because he's a zealot who'll go too far?
6) Weren't there folks who said that the country wasn't ready to abolish slavery? To integrate? For woman to have the vote? You don't try to gage if the country is ready and then act. You act, and hope the country is ready. There will always be folks who want to slow the road to progress. Doesn't mean we stop pushing for it does it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Once again, I criticize the stupidity. I criticize the gross oversimplification of the political process. Frankly, I don't want a bunch of political novices who do not understand our country or its needs trying to force radical change down the throats of America. History has proven, time and again, just how dangerous that is. Right now we are seeing exactly what happens when you allow a very small sect of zealots from the extreme end of a political spectrum overtake the national agenda. It isn't pretty. I am a self-avowed liberal and I don't want to see my side do it any more than I want to see the other side do it. Radical change is usually bad. It is ALWAYS bad when done without true thought and preparation. Neither of those qualities epitomize either Sanders's congressional career or the nature of his supporters.

You seem to have a pretty high opinion of yourself. All I can tell you is that things like unions, and the minimum wage, and choice, and the FDA were all criticized as overreach in their day. I don't think it's very smart to sit on the hill and assume that you know better than everybody. Giving people healthcare? I don't think there's anything radical in that. I think it's how you sell it. And with half of liberals being afraid to support liberal causes... we've got a long way to go on that one.

Alright, I am going to try to be more brief this time as I do have a daughter with whom I would like to spend time with this evening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaceB

Jesus... case in point. Calm down. I like how you chastise me for assuming your intentions, and then you do the same thing for Bernie supporters. Classy. You know... you can convey your point without being hostile right? ...And... dude, I didn't say that you disliked them because of them being petulant children. I said you have an ax to grind probably because of how they acted after the primary.

I am a lawyer, of course I don't know how to convey a point without being hostile. But seriously, you a misinterpreting forceful argumentation with hostility. They are two very different things.

Quote:

Your language is offensive. Because someone wants to feed the poor, and subsidize education, and give folks healthcare... that makes them a zealot? Uh huh. And again, I acknowledged your point about how incremental change is good, but I reiterate my point that your argument seems to be in favor of status at all cost, which I disagree with.

Webster defines zealot as "a fanatical partisan." Oxford defines it as "A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." Both of those definitions sum up Sanders well. He is on the far end of a political spectrum, is fanatical about his ideals, reputed for his uncompromising nature. There is nothing offensive about it. Its an accurate description. I'd use the same terminology to describe the Santorum sect of the Republican Party.

Quote:

Talking to our enemies
stimulus spending
getting rid of Bush tax cuts
getting out of Iraq
Healthcare reform
Equal pay for equal work
Saving the auto industry
... just to name a few...

If you are going to put lofty goals expressed in stump speeches out there as a platform (which lays out specific policy proposals of how to ascertain goals such as that you described), then you are either being intentionally obtuse or are just grossly ignorant on this topic.

Quote:

Or it could be that the electorate has genuinely felt like our political system was broken and turned to two folks (Obama and Trump) who promised to change it. You just got offended at me for assuming your intent, but you're too happy to assign mindless fellowship to others you disagree with. You're a piece of work man. There are lots and lots and lots of reasons whys folks voted for Obama, some dealing with policy, some dealing with celebrity, some dealing with being an anti-McCain vote.

Except here we are, eight years later, and there have been empirical studies conducted regarding the Obama movement that prove everything that I am saying is accurate. I'm not pulling things out of my ass. Feel free to consult the literature (and before you ask, nope, not taking the time to find it for you...Google Scholar is your friend).

Quote:

So, again, what's your argument. That, since electing a moderate didn't work, we should instead go after someone more... conservative?
2) I'm not suggesting that anything WOULD happen.I actually agreed with you dude, saying that it'd be exceptionally difficult to get the movement that he wanted, BUT if he were able to organize his political movement, then that'd be the only way. Again, I understand that you're mad... but in my opinion, some positive growth is preferable to waiting. That seems to be our fundamental disagreement.
3) Shouldn't you be more angry and Reid than Obama voters? As they voted him in but Reid was the one who refused to push Obama's agenda? What if Reid actively fought for the things Obama wanted in his first 2 years? What would have happened then?

No, my position is that we should accept a tempered approach. Obama did work. Just not in the way his '08 campaign promised. That is why there is such a stark contrast between '08 Obama and '12 Obama. He went from "Change" to "Change will take time and we aren't going to accomplish it but we are sure as hell going to lay down the groundwork." 2012 is when Obama grew up and there is a stark contrast between the two terms. I am advocating for candidates who understand how the game is played, are willing to play it (which Sanders is decidedly not willing to do), and will simply do their part to lay down the ground work, taking wins where they get them.

Quote:

haha, uh huh... Well, if it's socialism, it's not much further than what the industrialized world has. And if they have it, then I don't think it's unreasonable to shoot for the same thing here. And again, we can't possibly convince hearts and minds if we settle right away. Again, remember my argument - part of the reason we don't move forward as a country is because we focus too much on the could and not on the should. As a result, most Americans feel like socialism is innately bad because folks like you push the idea that it's an impossibility. Have some imagination.
I disagree with your opinion that rejection of paid education transcends party. That's a stretch.
You kind of made my point again here by categorizing the principles. You say, "socialism is still a very bad word for a good majority of Americans." That's true, but outside of that category, folks like these ideas in principle just like they like the ACA. People want subsidized education and healthcare. Universal care right now is more popular than ever. Now, if folks don't frame like you just did.. as a massive distribution of wealth (which itself is a political argument) then people could be pretty accepting I think. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/amer..._donald_trump/

Seriously? I cite to an empirically conducted Gallup poll, that was taken AFTER the public discourse of the 2016 election. You site to a Salon.com opinion piece, from 2015, that relies on a poll conducted by a special interest group aimed to promote progressive politics.

Quote:

It's true, it won't happen overnight, but change is slow and then all at once. I don't consider the last 50 years to be a good benchmark to predict the future. And again, I'm not arguing could, I'm arguing should. I KNOW it's going to be a heavy lift, I KNOW that the odds are against change. But is that really a reason not to try? No, a thousand times no. Because it's worth it Matt. And you get all in a tissy because some folks would have the gall to shoot for the policies they think should be in place instead of voting for what has been given them? I'm sorry... I just can't relate to that criticism.

You are selectively putting events in a bubble. In one breathe you acknowledge that history happens slowly, with a bunch of little incremental steps. In the next you say "it happens that way til it doesn't." As if the Justice Department choosing not to defend the gay marriage ban in Obergefell was just something that happened overnight. Events are a continuum. They build off of each other. Nothing happens as quickly as you may it. You are simplifying beyond belief.

And on that note, I am done. As I said, I want to spend time with my daughter and between your Salon article, your attempt to point to a bunch of broad policy proposals as a well defined policy platform for Obama (when it is historically accepted fact that '08 Obama had a very sparse platform), etc is showing a willful ignorance. I'm just not going to waste time with that. Sorry kid. Talk to me in ten years when you've grown out of your Bernie Bro phase.

Alright, I am going to try to be more brief this time as I do have a daughter with whom I would like to spend time with this evening.

I am a lawyer, of course I don't know how to convey a point without being hostile. But seriously, you a misinterpreting forceful argumentation with hostility. They are two very different things.

So you call folks petulant children and deflate their reasoning as just following twitter, but you don't want anyone questioning your intentions. Performative contradiction brah... I'm not confusing anything. Calling people infantile or questioning their intelligence because they didn't vote for your candidate is a bit like calling the kettle black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Webster defines zealot as "a fanatical partisan." Oxford defines it as "A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." Both of those definitions sum up Sanders well. He is on the far end of a political spectrum, is fanatical about his ideals, reputed for his uncompromising nature. There is nothing offensive about it. Its an accurate description. I'd use the same terminology to describe the Santorum sect of the Republican Party.

Actually I'd disagree. Is me being consistently in favor of recycling me being fanatical? I mean... I'm uncompromising in pursuit of a political ideal. Bernie is an independent. Does he seem like he carries a torch for any political ideal to you? No, IMO, it's different to be uncompromising towards an issue like... feeding the poor. That's not being fanatical. That's being consistent. Regardless of which party, it's clear that Bernie believes in the power of class. He's a believer in those ideas.
It's the negative connotation that is clear throughout your piece. You wouldn't call Comey a fanatic - even though he has an uncompromising pursuit of the "political" ideal of justice. Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Unless I suppose unless you want to take the negative connotation out of the word zealot. In which case, I didn't get that, and that's my bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

If you are going to put lofty goals expressed in stump speeches out there as a platform (which lays out specific policy proposals of how to ascertain goals such as that you described), then you are either being intentionally obtuse or are just grossly ignorant on this topic.

So wait... Obama voters were only interested in him as a celebrity because they didn't research his platform on his website? Like, because folks saw him on TV say, "hey, I think we need stimulus to get out of this," you'd argue that they are just twitter celebrity fans because they took him at his word?
A voter can only be serious about a candidate if they investigate every platform position? That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Look, you basically said that folks voted for Obama because he was a celebrity. I said "no," he had lots of policy positions. You said, "psh, that's just what he said, not his platform." My reply: so? Where his policy positions come from have no barring on the quality of his voters, and AGAIN, you're surmising intent on these folks. You're defaulting to the belief that they are just stupid idiots even in the face of argumentation. Like, "psh, people only like Bernie and Obama cause they are celebrities."
"No, I like Bernie because he promises to get money out of politics."
"Psh, he didn't even like... put that on his website. You're not really interested obviously."
What? ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Except here we are, eight years later, and there have been empirical studies conducted regarding the Obama movement that prove everything that I am saying is accurate. I'm not pulling things out of my ass. Feel free to consult the literature (and before you ask, nope, not taking the time to find it for you...Google Scholar is your friend).

Umm, first - there is no way that a study could conclusively prove the various influences on why a person voted the way they did.
2 - Silence is compliance. If you say there's a mystery study that proves you correct, but won't find it for me... then don't expect me to do your work for you. I don't know you. There's no reason for me just to take your word for it.
3) I just demonstrated multiple policy positions that Obama held. Where they come from is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not trying to prove to you about the amount of material in Obama's agenda. I'm trying to argue that voters didn't just vote for him because he was popular. Him saying it in a stump speech is easily enough.
4) And even if there were studies. Using that info to conclusively prove it's the same for Bernie would be extremely difficult to impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

No, my position is that we should accept a tempered approach. Obama did work. Just not in the way his '08 campaign promised.

But you're complaining about it. So... you're saying that Obama was a moderate. Even though he didn't get as much done as he could, we should still try again, because big moves don't work in America. I'm sorry, but that is extremely unconvincing Matt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

That is why there is such a stark contrast between '08 Obama and '12 Obama. He went from "Change" to "Change will take time and we aren't going to accomplish it but we are sure as hell going to lay down the groundwork." 2012 is when Obama grew up and there is a stark contrast between the two terms. I am advocating for candidates who understand how the game is played, are willing to play it (which Sanders is decidedly not willing to do), and will simply do their part to lay down the ground work, taking wins where they get them.

1 - You don't know that.
2 - Again, Barack had lots of policy positions in his first term.
3 - Pardon some of us for wanting a fighter and not just someone holding a cup out saying, "are you ready to help the poor now! Pllleeeeaaaassssssseee."
4 - Again, it didn't seem to matter with Obama. You say, you want someone who knows how the game is played. Did Obama really get any major legislation passed except the ACA? You're arguing that we shouldn't make sudden turns because we could stall, when we've been driving straight as an arrow for 8 years, and we still stalled. Whether he's moderate or liberal, big or tall, man or women, Republicans will obstruct, because they DO believe in their own policy positions and are willing to fight for them. You'd have us sit there until they get tired, hoping that someday our day will come. And even if I'm being harsh, that should still give you more than enough rationale to appreciate the Sanders voter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Seriously? I cite to an empirically conducted Gallup poll, that was taken AFTER the public discourse of the 2016 election. You site to a Salon.com opinion piece, from 2015, that relies on a poll conducted by a special interest group aimed to promote progressive politics.

Did you cite something? I didn't see it. Mentioning a poll is really different than actual presenting something, but I probably just missed it.
Also, I wasn't trying to compete with you on sources. I was just trying to elaborate my point. I wasn't claiming that Salon was the definitive source. I browsed quickly to see if there was something that supported my message. I found it in 1 minute and actually supplied it to you for reference.
Also... I'll just reiterate my points:

haha, uh huh... Well, if it's socialism, it's not much further than what the industrialized world has. And if they have it, then I don't think it's unreasonable to shoot for the same thing here. And again, we can't possibly convince hearts and minds if we settle right away. Again, remember my argument - part of the reason we don't move forward as a country is because we focus too much on the could and not on the should. As a result, most Americans feel like socialism is innately bad because folks like you push the idea that it's an impossibility. Have some imagination.
I disagree with your opinion that rejection of paid education transcends party. That's a stretch.
You kind of made my point again here by categorizing the principles. You say, "socialism is still a very bad word for a good majority of Americans." That's true, but outside of that category, folks like these ideas in principle just like they like the ACA. People want subsidized education and healthcare. Universal care right now is more popular than ever. Now, if folks don't frame like you just did.. as a massive distribution of wealth (which itself is a political argument) then people could be pretty accepting I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

You are selectively putting events in a bubble. In one breathe you acknowledge that history happens slowly, with a bunch of little incremental steps. In the next you say "it happens that way til it doesn't." As if the Justice Department choosing not to defend the gay marriage ban in Obergefell was just something that happened overnight. Events are a continuum. They build off of each other. Nothing happens as quickly as you may it. You are simplifying beyond belief.

And on that note, I am done. As I said, I want to spend time with my daughter and between your Salon article, your attempt to point to a bunch of broad policy proposals as a well defined policy platform for Obama (when it is historically accepted fact that '08 Obama had a very sparse platform), etc is showing a willful ignorance. I'm just not going to waste time with that. Sorry kid. Talk to me in ten years when you've grown out of your Bernie Bro phase.

Haha, okay dude. Enjoy yourself. I think that you treat people rather rudely when you disagree with them. I've noticed on several occasions that you'll belittle a person's age when you disagree with them. It's a shame, because you are so well looked up to in this place. For the record, I'm 31... a poly science major at Berkeley, and now work with a local news group. Belittle me all you want. I'm very comfortable with my vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general... again.. because I wanted to vote for someone who advocates for the issues I care about. You can make that into something more if you want by saying that I was just trying to fit in with what was trending. Whatever. I've dedicated my life to being involved in progressive causes... and not to a particular team.

I saw what the DNC did to Bernie, and I didn't appreciate a club getting to make the decision for me before my vote. I believed in Bernie's rhetoric and I believed his policy positions would better the country. If those reasons aren't good enough for you, well sorry. As it happens, I'd do it again.

And Matt, I've been extremely clear on this point. In politics as in history... everything goes slow, and then all at once. Like I said, the gay movement lasted decades... it went through slow, incremental growth for many many many years. But then, pretty suddenly, it all sort of changed. Mindsets shifted, and in the span of 2 years, a lot happened!
The justice Department chose not to defend the gay marriage ban, and that wasn't a small change. It was a big change.... but it was built on all of those small changes of the past. A big change... something we would have never imagined a decade earlier.... happened in a few days thanks to the pressure and timing being right.

Hey Mace b id like to point out that the battle for gay rights isn't over. How do you know the gay marriage ruling isn't going to be overturned? How do you know the supreme court's decision on same sex sodomy wont be reversed?

I think change has happened but its changed less than you think. People are still very biased and often times people hide their racist and homophobic feelings because its supposed to be socially unacceptable.

Also, yes, people in the past have often become more conservative as they aged but now they're seeing their children struggle to get jobs, struggle to move out on their own, struggle to afford healthcare, struggling under depression and substance abuse...and hell hath no fury like a parent wanting their children to do as well or better than they did. They want answers. They want change and they're a big reason why the current President was basically able to win on a Screw Washington! platform. Everyone talks about the young people at Bernie's rallies but there were a LOT of fed up parents sick of their children not having a real future under current conditions.

Also, yes, people in the past have often become more conservative as they aged but now they're seeing their children struggle to get jobs, struggle to move out on their own, struggle to afford healthcare, struggling under depression and substance abuse...and hell hath no fury like a parent wanting their children to do as well or better than they did. They want answers. They want change and they're a big reason why the current President was basically able to win on a Screw Washington! platform. Everyone talks about the young people at Bernie's rallies but there were a LOT of fed up parents sick of their children not having a real future under current conditions.

if people were more educated those conditions would have helped Hillary instead of Trump.
If you go by economic conditions this is the ripe moment to raise wages significantly. Bjt the window of opportunity is short. It will close before the next election most likely.

It likely wont come again for a generation. Well be even further behind than we were eight years ago.

Edit.. for those who misinterpret that. Unemployment is at a historic low. That is the moment when you can significantly raise wages. Who think's were going to exit Trump's first term with unemployment at a historic low?